Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — MINES AND QUARRIES BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

11.5 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
We have before us a considerable body of Amendments, the large majority of which are either of a drafting nature or consequential, or are not of significant substance. If it were agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, and met with the approval of the House, it might be for the convenience of hon. Members if, where the Amendments falling into a particular group run consecutively, I might be permitted to move them as a group until we come to an Amendment of some substance, or a new point, in which case I would move it separately.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to consult us about what he now proposes and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), we have given consideration to it. We are in full agreement, and are grateful to him for having so consulted us.

Mr. Speaker: If that meets with the approval of the House, I am quite willing to proceed in that manner because, from the point of view of the House, it would have the advantage of focusing, in the time available, the discussion on the more important points. If hon. Members wish to discuss any point that might be put in a block, I do rely upon them to draw my attention to that fact, because it is the right of any hon. Member of the

House to discuss any Amendments received from another place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 1.—(GENERAL DUTIES OF MINE AND QUARRY OWNERS.)

Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 2, line 23, agreed to.

Clause 2.—(APPOINTMENT, AND GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS, OF MINE MANAGERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 23, leave out from "worked" to "unless" in line 24.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with a small new point. It provides that, although notice must be given of the proposal to open any new mine or quarry, the manager of that new mine or quarry need not be appointed until operations actually begin.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 3, line 48, agreed to.

Clause 3.—(RIGHTS OF MINE MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY OR ON BEHALF OF OWNER.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 48, at end, insert:
(4) Where, in the case of such a mine as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, instructions are given and confirmed as therein mentioned, the document by which they are confirmed shall be preserved by the manager of the mine, and a copy of that document shall be preserved by the owner of the mine, in each case for three years after the instructions cease to be operative.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is in response to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend that the instructions to a manager which he is required to have confirmed in writing shall be kept in the official records of the mine. Further to that, this Amendment provides that the records


shall be kept, not for 12 months as originally proposed, but for three years.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 8, line 18, agreed to.

Clause 10.—(DUTIES OF MINE MANAGERS WITH RESPECT TO READING OF REPORTS, &c.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 18, leave out "kept at" and insert:
provided for that purpose by the owner of.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a paving Amendment in response to an undertaking to which effect has been given in a new Clause to replace Clause 132, which provides that the books which must be kept at the office of a mine or quarry may either be kept there or, subject to the approval of the inspector, may be kept at another place, because there are certain quarries where it is not convenient for them to be kept at the office of those quarries.

Mr. Tom Brown: Am I to understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the premises on which these records shall be kept are to be colliery premises or away from the colliery premises?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: They would only be kept on premises other than colliery premises which are approved by an inspector.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 12.—(DEPUTIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 36, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a paving Amendment, and it might be convenient to take it in conjunction with the next Amendment, in line 39. The effect of these Amendments is to implement an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend that in making regulations dealing with deputies he shall have regard to safeguarding the paramountcy of their safety duties.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 29, line 34, agreed to.

Clause 41.—(SAFETY MEASURES RELATING TO USE OF VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 34, leave out "due to" and insert:
likely to cause bodily injury to persons, being accidents caused by.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment introduces a small new point, and is in response to discussions which we have had before. The effect provides that devices such as runaway switches which may cause accidents in the sense of damage to vehicles may nevertheless be permitted, provided that they are not calculated to cause injury to people.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 36, line 15, agreed to.

Clause 54.—(PROVISIONS AS TO SUPPORT RULES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 15, at end, insert:
(6) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine with respect to which support rules are for the time being in force to supply to every person employed at the mine whose duties consist of, or include, the setting of supports in accordance with a system specified in the rules, a document explaining either verbally or diagrammatically, or partly in the one way and partly in the other, the effect of the rules so far as they concern him.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in the earlier proceedings, that provision would be made for a commonsense short document containing what the workmen ought to know about the support rules. I hope that the House will agree that this Amendment gives effect to that undertaking. It seems to me to do exactly what is wanted.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Harold Neal: On previous occasions, I have expressed my warm approval of this Bill, and I think I can claim a modest share in its creation before it parted company with us to go to another place. It would, therefore, be unwise and inconsistent if I were unduly to delay this final stage in the Bill's development. For those reasons, I want to offer only a brief comment on the Amendment.
I am glad that the Minister has fulfilled the undertaking which he gave on Report. Although a copy of the support rules may be posted underground at the entrance to the district where they operate, we regarded that arrangement as insufficient. Often a notice posted underground and remaining, there for some time becomes indecipherable. Also, as men are passing and repassing such a position, their minds are preoccupied with their work, about the stint which is before them. When they are returning at the end of the shift past the notice that is posted underground they are invariably covered with perspiration and their anxiety is to reach the surface.
Consequently, it is not possible that such a notice underground would be adequately studied by the men who have to operate the support rules. I see in public places, on railway stations and in other places, notices which few people read. We therefore thought that the impact on the workmen's minds would be better if a printed copy of any support rules which were to apply were placed in their hands.
Furthermore, when a change of rules takes place, it is important that the man who has to operate those rules should be informed of the change. If a man changes his employment from one colliery to another, he requires to be apprised of the support rules of the colliery where he has gone to work.
There is one new word in this subsection, in the passage which says:
… a document explaining either verbally or diagrammatically …
This is an interesting and useful feature, because the National Coal Board has already done a lot to propagate good support by diagrams. If men can have included in the booklet which is to be presented to them diagrams of the support rules which are intended to apply, it

will be very useful. If, after having received a copy of these rules as the subsection determines, a man defaults and offends against the law, he can have no excuse. We heartily support this Amendment, in which the Minister has fulfilled his promise.

Mr. T. Brown: I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister has gone a long way to meet us. As practical pitmen, we know what the posting of notices at the pithead is like. These places, like all the adjacent property, are subject to the dusty atmosphere. Some of the notices which I have seen in the pits could not be read for coal dust.
I know that the Minister is anxious to impart information to the workmen in order that they may be safeguarded and may be fully aware of the regulations operating in any particular mine. We all know that the roof supports differ in various mines, and therefore one general notice would not do. I am glad that the Minister and his Department are prepared to issue a booklet.
I should like to raise one point, on which I pleaded before. I should like to re-emphasise the plea that the booklet or leaflet shall be expressed in simple terms. I observe that there has been introduced into this proposed subsection the word "diagrammatically." The old pitman would not understand that. If the rules that he has got to follow are expressed in simple terms he will admire the man who drafted the leaflet. Let us get away from this legal jargon and express these things in simple terms. My plea on behalf of the men who work in the pits is that they shall be able to understand what is meant by the regulations instructing them in safety in the pits.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Perhaps I may make an observation which will be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) on the word "diagrammatically." The object of the insertion of that word is precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Ince wants. When these booklets are prepared, not only will the explanations be given in words, which may or not be legalistic—I hope that they will not be—but they will be set out in the form of diagrams, which is an


extremely good thing. I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing the Amendment, and I feel that he has completely fulfilled the undertaking which he gave.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I should like to re-emphasise what the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) has said, but I sympathise with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) about Parliamentary language. The word "diagrammatically" conveys to the ordinary man something extremely intricate in the way of draftsmanship, whereas it really means that the words are illustrated by a picture. Perhaps I can give an example which is more in keeping with our activities in the House. We know that from time to time political issues of the day are dealt with by cartoons, to express some particular point pungently, but if we had to mention those cartoons in a Parliamentary statute they would be described as "diagrammatical illustrations."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 55.—(DUTY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VENTILATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 36, at end, insert:
or, if a smaller percentage by volume is prescribed, that smaller percentage;

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When we considered this Clause in Committee, we accepted with considerable reluctance the view of hon. Members opposite that it should contain a minimum standard as to the amount of carbon dioxide which might be permitted to be present in the air stream. Having done so, we were almost immediately advised by the medical experts that they were by no means certain that the minimum standard might not come to be too high, and the object of the Amendment is accordingly to empower my right hon. Friend to reduce that standard, naturally to the advantage of those working in the mines, should it become advisable and necessary to do so at a future date. The Amendment is accordingly of considerable advantage, both to the miners and to the general structure of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 40, line 31, agreed to.

Clause 61.—(LIGHTING.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 31, at end, insert:
(account being taken, where lamps are normally carried by persons who work in or pass through any such part, of the amount of light emitted by those lamps)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is almost consequential, and it brings about, in regard to lighting on the surface, provisions similar to those which exist in regard to lighting underground. It affects only surface lighting, and brings it into line with underground lighting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 44, line 20, agreed to.

Clause 66.—(PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF SMOKING MATERIALS IN CERTAIN MINES AND PARTS OF MINES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 20, at end, insert:
(7) It shall be the duty of the manager of every safety-lamp mine and of every mane containing a safety-lamp part to secure that, at or near every place where searches are carried out under arrangements made in pursuance of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section, notices warning persons of their liability under subsection (1) thereof are kept posted in such characters and in such positions as to be easily seen and read by persons liable to be searched.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is again in response to an undertaking, and provides that warning notices against the carrying of contraband shall be displayed in collieries at places beyond those places at which searches are made.

Mr. Neal: These provisions used to be described as relating to prohibited articles. We all know the disastrous consequences which are likely to occur through miners taking underground smoking materials, matches and cigarette


lighters. The Amendment is very desirable. As the Amendment says, notices are to be kept posted:
in such characters and in such positions as to be easily seen and read by persons liable to be searched.
These notices should certainly be there when the men are entering the pit premises so that they are seen and before the men are searched.
Sometimes a smoker inadvertently leaves in his pocket one or other of these contraband articles especially at those pits which have no pithead baths, and which, therefore, do not allow him to have a change of clothing. In such cases a man is likely to commit an offence unwittingly, and if he reads a notice, in legible characters, before he reaches the point of search it is likely to give him a last reminder to search himself before being searched officially by a deputy or other official at the colliery. We thank the Minister once more for agreeing with us and bringing forward the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 47, line 15, agreed to.

Clause 70.—(FIRE PRECAUTIONS IN CASE OF WORKINGS SERVED BY SINGLE IN TAKE AIRWAY.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 15, leave out:
no account shall be taken of.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is linked to the following one, in line 17. Both are in response to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend, and provide that he may make regulations to deal with circumstances where, owing to the change of shifts, the number of men who have to use one airway may exceed 100.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 49, line 1, agreed to.

New Clause.—(MEANS OF ESCAPE FROM ROOMS IN WHICH THERE IS SPECIAL RISK OF FIRE, &C.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 1, leave out Clause 73 and insert new Clause "B":

It shall not be lawful for a person to be employed at a mine in a room, chamber, or similar confined space in which, owing to the nature of any machinery or apparatus installed therein or of any materials stored therein, there is a risk of the, outbreak of a dangerous fire or the escape of steam in substantial quantity or of noxious gas in a dangerous concentration, unless either such steps are taken (whether by the provision of two or more exits or otherwise) as are necessary for the purpose of minimising the risk of his being trapped therein in any such event or the circumstances in which he is employed are themselves such as to minimise the risk of his being so trapped.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause does not make any substantial change, but it does meet various points which were raised from time to time during the course of debate, in order to achieve the best and most practical results we can to ensure that people working in a place of danger shall have adequate means of escape from fire and hazards of that sort.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 56, line 14, agreed to.

Clause 86.—(CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 14, leave out:
of safe construction and properly maintained,
and insert "kept in safe condition."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment provides that surface buildings which may not be in use shall be kept in a safe condition, but shall not necessarily be maintained in the sense of being kept painted and so forth. This is a slight restriction, in response particularly to an undertaking to consider the matter which was given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 58, line 10, agreed to.

Clause 92.—(MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 10, after "a" insert "young."

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause deals with medical examinations. As a result of consideration in another place and of other discussions on this matter we have at last achieved what is agreeable and satisfactory to all concerned. We have also brought the provisions into line with the International Labour Organisation's recommendations, so that compulsory medical examinations in future shall, subject to any changes that may be made by Regulations under the agreed procedure, apply only to young persons under the age of 18.

Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause.—(MEASURES AGAINST VERMIN AND INSECTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 28, at end, insert new Clause "C":
(1) It shall be the duty of the owner of every mine to take such steps as are necessary to secure that all parts of the mine below ground are kept free from rats and mice, and provision may be made by regulations for requiring owners of mines to take steps for the destruction below ground therein of insects or any prescribed class of insects or otherwise for keeping parts of mines below ground free from insects or any prescribed class of insects.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding the application to parts of mines below ground of any of the provisions of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The question of vermin is an important one, and it is even a topical one. I should like to recall the history of this matter. Hon. Members opposite asked us to include some definite provisions in the Bill for dealing with the proper extermination of vermin below ground. In our discussions we thought that we would avail ourselves particularly of the assistance of another place in dealing with this matter, because, for various reasons, we thought that would be appropriate. That was a view shared on all sides here, because of the technical difficulty of the subject, and the amount of experience that could be brought to bear.
This subject falls largely into two classes, first vermin below ground, and second vermin above ground. There are provisions in this new Clause for dealing with both those kinds of vermin. While some vermin are relatively harmless—indeed, some people would say they fulfil a useful purpose in the general order of nature and in the balance of life—there are other classes of vermin that are a deadly menace to health. I would stress that, and express my gratitude for the suggestion made by this Lords Amendment, because virus disease is an extremely serious thing.
I am glad to say that, although it is such a pernicious and deadly disease, it has been, generally speaking, declining, and I am also glad that the vermin population underground is declining as well. Still I think that it is vital that we should have the strongest possible provisions for reducing the problem still further, and I hope that we shall exterminate both the vermin which carry this disease and the disease itself. If I remember rightly, it is particularly bad in some of the northern coalfields.
What we have done now is to put a definite obligation upon the owner to deal with the matter, quite irrespective of the obligations that rest upon local authorities under the Act of 1949. We are now placing an additional and direct obligation on the owner, which means, of course, the National Coal Board, and we have taken steps to apprise them of the importance of the matter, and they were, indeed, already well aware of it.
With regard to the species rattus rattus, as it is called in the scientific works, which is the carrier of this disease, everything should be done to deal with it under this new Clause. As to the other species of vermin found above ground, what I may describe as rattus Bevanis, there has been rather an increase in the neighbourhood of Liverpool, and it is probably going to spread throughout the country.

Mr. R. Williams: Apart from vermin, what consideration has the Minister given to insects, which are also to be dealt with under this new Clause, and are here mentioned for the first time in the Bill? I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has spent quite a lot of time on this matter and will be able to


give the House the benefit of his observations, in terms as full of erudition and charm as those in which he has talked about vermin. I am sure the House would not like to part with the new Clause without hearing what the Minister has to say about insects.

Mr. T. Brown: One feels grateful to the Minister for focusing his mind on the problem of vermin. We who are miners know that mines are subject to visitations by mice, which come as provender for the ponies in the deep mines, and we all know that there are visitations from time to time by rats, mostly in drift mines.
I wonder what steps the Minister is going to take to deal with the wood hornet. It is a little insect, but is a very terrible insect. Nobody can sec it, even above ground, because it bores into timber. It comes from abroad, mostly in the pit props from Finland and northern Russia. Nobody can tell that it is in the timber. How is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with this insect when it reveals itself underground? The wood hornet is embedded in the timber; it is latent there; it comes out when it gets into the pit atmosphere.
Some may say that it is only a trivial thing; but is it? I have known wood hornets in the pits make severe attacks on miners who did not know anything about them until the damage was done. I recall a case in which a wood hornet, rather about the normal size, descended on the back of a miner who thought it was only a little bit of dirt of the sort we get in the pit. Eventually that hornet, accustomed to boring into timber, bored into the man's back, and set up septic poisoning, and that man was a cripple.
What steps is the Minister going to take for examination of imported props? What steps is he going to take to see to it that as far as possible and wherever practicable—I have to use that expression of which we heard so much in Committee—the wood hornet in timber shall not go into the pits? I know that there are processes that may be applied.
We are delighted to know that the Minister is focusing his mind upon what to some people may appear to be a trivial matter but is in reality a very important one. The trouble should be put right at the beginning, by the preven-

tion of wood hornets from descending into the pits and infesting them. There are several little matters under this heading that can be dealt with by the Minister in the quiet of his office. He ought to consider how and to what extent these insects can be prevented from doing damage underground.

Mr. William Blyton: I think that in this issue the Minister has gone a long way to meet the desires of this side of the House and has imposed an obligation on mine managers that was not in the 1911 Act. There may be difficulties about some insects, but this is a statutory obligation on the manager to keep down such things as rats in the drifts and mice in deep shafts. Whatever may be the difficulties about insects, I think the three difficult things in a pit are what we call midges around the choppy block for ponies, rats and mice, and beetles that crawl about the stables in the pit. We are getting a good concession in having an obligation placed upon the managers to abolish these vermin from the mines of our country to the best of their ability.

Mr. Harold Finch: I want to join in welcoming this new Clause. It is very welcome to us on this side of the House. As has already been stated, we did not have a similar Clause in the old Act and we know from many years of experience that quite a number of men have been disabled by Weil's disease, which is due to contamination from rats.
In the last five or six years we have had quite a number of deaths—particularly in Scotland and South Wales—of men suffering from this horrible disease. Thirty per cent. of those who suffered from it have passed away as a result. Therefore, this new Clause, which now places an obligation upon the Coal Board to take the necessary precautions, will—as has already been stated—be very welcome indeed. I realise that the National Board Board has already taken many steps in this matter.
11.45 a.m.
We are informed that rats which ate the food for horses and their manure now feed on edible oils as well, and it is necessary to transfer wherever possible to inedible oils. This position reveals that miners not only have to grapple with the forces of nature—the falls of earth and rock—but with this disease spread by rats.


That shows the risk a miner runs in so many spheres in trying to get coal from mother earth.
I want again to extend my thanks to the Minister for having inserted this Clause in the Bill. If we can save one human life and help to eradicate this disease from the industry, this Clause will be welcomed by the miners and we look forward with optimism to its effect in the mining industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: By leave of the House, I would like to add a word, particularly to what has been said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). We ought to be particularly grateful for the work that was done in another place in dealing with insects as well as with rats and mice, because in our original consideration of this we got as far as rats and mice, but we did not so much direct our minds to the insects.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ince that the question of insects coming in pitprops ought to be properly dealt with. Of course, the use of wooden pitprops is declining and, I expect, it will go on declining. But, as I expect he would like to know, it is the intention to deal with this matter by treating timber either with creosote, or silicates, which, I understand, are effective against these particular pests.
It is a good feature that the Minister will have power by regulation to deal with this matter in detail so that we shall be able, supposing some other menace arises, to deal with it. We are particularly anxious that we should make progress in dealing with the small amount of Weil's disease, treating its seriousness not in proportion to the number of cases, but to the dangerous nature of the disease when it manifests itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 69, line 33, agreed to.

New Clause "E".—(SITE OF ACCIDENT OR OTHER DANGEROUS OCCURRENCE TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 33, leave out Clause 119 and insert new Clause "E":
Where there occurs at a mine or quarry an accident or other occurrence (being in either case one of which notice is required by this

Act to be given), no person shall disturb the place where it occurred or tamper with anything thereat before—

(a) the expiration of three clear days after notification of the accident or other occurrence in accordance with this Act; or
(b) that place has been both visited by an inspector and inspected in exercise of the powers in that behalf conferred by the provisions of this Act relating to workmen's inspections;
whichever first occurs:
Provided that—

(i) nothing in this section shall prohibit the doing of anything by or with the consent of an inspector; and
(ii) in any proceedings taken in respect of a contravention of this section consisting of the doing of any act, it shall be a defence to prove that the doing of that act was necessary for securing the safety of the mine or quarry or persons thereat."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is very largely a rewriting of the previous Clause, but it also introduces certain new points of significance, though not of very fundamental importance. It particularly provides that the site of an accident shall be left undisturbed for three clear days so the workmen's inspectors as well as Her Majesty's inspectors may have an opportunity of visiting the place. The principal additional change is that the disturbance of such a site of an accident shall be permitted, subject to the consent of an inspector, if leaving it undisturbed would impede the working of the mine. In both cases I think the slight variations meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. Neal: I do not mind admitting—and I think it is an admission which is shared by my hon. Friends—that my lay mind is incapable of appreciating the obscure value of some of the finer legal points of the Amendments which the House has previously approved.
But I can readily see the advantages of this Amendment. During the Committee stage we pointed out our desires concerning what should be done following an accident. When an accident has taken place underground, it is necessary that the scene of the accident shall be left undisturbed for a period in which inspections by both Her Majesty's inspector and by inspectors representing the workers


can take place. It is not always possible to do this. Sometimes, the exigencies of safety and production render it impossible. But without this Amendment there would be unexampled confusion and doubt regarding the rights of workers' representatives after an accident underground.
The owners of the mine would have a decided advantage over the employees in any possible litigation that might take place. That advantage is now removed by this Amendment. A subsequent decision of a coroner's court, or of the High Court, or the findings of an inquiry that had been set up by the Minister, might depend on the views of those who view the scene of the accident in these circumstances. The information obtained might not always be of great value in any subsequent decision in any of these courts or inquiries that might take place. But it will give great satisfaction to the workmen that these facilities are available. Besides justice being done, we must make it appear to be done.
Paragraph (ii) in this new Clause is a very fair provision. It reads:
In any proceedings taken in respect of a contravention of this Section consisting of the doing of any act, it shall be a defence to prove that the doing of that act was necessary for securing the safety of the mine …
We are heartily in agreement with that insertion, because in this Amendment safety is paramount over production. It does not say that coal shall be taken regardless of this intention. It does not say expenses shall be considered. It gives safety priority over everything else. This Amendment has our full agreement and we are sure the trade unions concerned with workmen's representation will be satisfied with its content.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 74, line 9, agreed to.

Clause 126.—(PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF MALE YOUNG PERSONS OVER SIXTEEN.)

Lords Amendment: In page 74, line 9, leave out from first "of" to "by" in line 12, and insert:
any mine or quarry, the responsible person, if authorised so to do, may

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to bring the Bill into line with the requirements of the International Labour Convention No. 90. The Clause as amended does not in any way increase the permitted hours of work of young persons, but empowers the Minister or, in certain limited cases, the inspector to permit the extension of the period during which young persons may work, provided that there is no actual increase in the number of hours worked. It is for the greater facility and flexibility of the working of the mines, and I think that it will meet with the approval of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 79, line 1, agreed to.

New Clause.—(POSTING OF NOTICES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 79, line 1, leave out Clause 135, and insert new Clause "G":
.—(1) At all times at which persons are employed at a mine or quarry there shall be kept posted thereat—

(a) a notice of the name of the mine or quarry, the name and address of the owner thereof and the name or names of the manager or managers thereof;
(b) a notice of the name and address of the inspector for the district; and
(c) a notice specifying the situation of the accommodation provided in pursuance of the last foregoing section.
(2) Where, in the case of a mine or quarry,—

(a) regulations affecting it are made; or
(b) a notice is served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector on the responsible person;
notice of the making of the regulations or, as the case may be, of the service of the notice (specifying the regulations or, as the case may be, indicating the general nature of the notice) shall be kept posted at the mine or quarry at all times during the period of six months next following the making or service of the regulations or notice at which persons are employed at the mine or quarry.
(3) All notices required by this section shall be posted at a mine or quarry shall be posted in such characters and in such positions as to be easily seen and read by the persons employed thereat, and if a form is specified by the Minister for any such notice, it shall be posted in that form.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is very largely a rewriting of Clause 135. It introduces certain minor changes which are all of a practical character. For instance, it provides that at some small mines and quarries the notices, instead of being posted the whole time, whether people are employed there or not, may be taken down at night, because it is found that that is a safer way of preserving them than leaving them up while the mine or quarry is unattended. The Clause was impossible of amendment without rewriting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 80, line 1, agreed to.

Clause 137.—(PERIODICAL RETURNS BY OWNERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 80, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) No returns, statistics or other information obtained under the foregoing subsection shall, without the consent in writing of the person carrying on the undertaking to which the returns, statistics or other information relate, be disclosed except—

(a) with the consent of the Minister, to a government department for the purposes of the exercise by them of any of their functions; or
(b) in the form of a summary of similar returns, statistics or other information furnished by a number of owners of mines or quarries, being a summary so framed as not to enable particulars relating to the undertaking of a particular person to be ascertained therefrom; or
(c) for the purposes of any proceedings for an offence under this Act or any report of any such proceedings."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is in order to provide protection for persons who make returns to the Minister—protecting legally against disclosure all those concerned without the various consents referred to in the Amendment. It brings the provision into line with the provisions of the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 86, line 1, agreed to.

Clause 146.—(THE MINING QUALIFICA TIONS BOARD.)

Lords Amendment: In page 86, line 1, leave out "seven", and insert:
not less than seven nor mare than ten.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: This Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 4, give effect to two undertakings which we gave in Standing Committee. The first was to consider making it easier for not less than two members of the board to represent the views of the workmen in coal mines, and the second, to take powers to increase the board membership by two in the event of statutory qualifications being required for managers of mines now under the Metalliferous Mines Regulations Act, 1872, and by a further two in the event of such qualifications being required for quarry managers. This Amendment carries out these two undertakings.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 89, line 27, agreed to.

Clause 149.—(FENCING OF ABANDONED AND DISUSED MINES AND OF QUARRIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 89, line 27, leave out subsection (2), and insert:
(2) For the purposes of Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, each of the following shall be deemed to be a statutory nuisance that is to say:—

(a) a shaft or outlet of an abandoned mine (other than a mine to which the proviso to the foregoing subsection applies) or of a mine (other than as aforesaid) which, notwithstanding that it has not been abandoned, has not been worked for a period of twelve months, being a shaft or outlet the surface entrance to which is not provided with a properly maintained device such as is mentioned in that subsection;
(b) a shaft or outlet of a mine to which the proviso to the foregoing subsection applies, being a shaft or outlet with respect to which the following conditions are satisfied, namely,—

(i) that its surface entrance is not provided with a properly maintained device such as is mentioned in that subsection; and
(ii) that, by reason of its accessibility from a highway or a place of public resort, it constitutes a danger to members of the public; and


(c) a quarry (whether in course of being worked or not) which—

(i) is not provided with an efficient and properly maintained barrier so designed and constructed as to prevent any person from accidentally falling into the quarry; and
(ii) by reason of its accessibility from a highway or a place of public resort constitutes a danger to members of the public."

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment deals with the application of the Public Health Act, and it applies the statutory nuisance procedure under that Act in the case of any failure to fence a shaft or outlet of an abandoned or disused mine or quarry. I think that this provision will be welcomed throughout the country. In addition, it makes accessibility the one criterion for assessing what is a public danger.

Mr. T. Brown: I welcome this Amendment. I have the honour to represent a constituency in which there are probably more disused shafts than in any other part of the country. Some of them are left in a state which make them dangerous not only to adults but also to children.
I want to make a suggestion, because regulations will have to be drawn up, as the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary know. To my mind it is not sufficient to fence or brick round the top of a shaft. It is also necessary to put an adequate fence a few yards from the approach to the shaft. I know of a shaft which has been built round to render it safe so far as possible, but an opening has been made in the brickwork, so children cart get to the top of the mine upon which the brickwork is fixed. If we can prevent them from getting to the point of danger, I think that would be a step in the right direction, and I suggest that that might be considered.
Apart from bricking round the shaft which is disused, the approach to the shaft should also be fenced round to prevent children or adults from damaging the brickwork. That would be art added safety factor which would be welcomed in my constituency.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: We welcome the practical suggestion of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). I join with him personally in welcoming this provision

because in my constituency there are probably as many deaths of children owing to their falling into waterlogged, disused quarries as anywhere in the country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 93, line 41, agreed to.

New Clause "I."—(LIABILITY OF OWNERS FOR BREACHES OF STATUTORY DUTY BY THEIR SERVANTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 41, at end, insert new Clause "I":
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the owner of a mine or quarry is not absolved from liability to pay damages in respect of a contravention, in relation to the mine or quarry, by a person employed by him of—

(a) a provision of this Act, of an order made thereunder or of regulations; or
(b) a prohibition, restriction or requirement imposed by a notice served under or by virtue of this Act by an inspector;
by reason only that the provision, contravened was one which expressly imposed on that person or on persons of a class to which, at the time of the contravention, he belonged, a duty or requirement or expressly prohibited that person, or persons of such a class or all persons from doing a specified act or, as the case may be, that the prohibition, restriction or requirement was expressly imposed on that person or that that person was, in pursuance of this Act or regulations, appointed by a person other than the owner.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a highly technical Amendment, and it is for the removal of legal doubts. You, Mr. Speaker, know more about the possibility of that than I do. I have considered the question very carefully and, in my view, it fully covers the various points raised in the course of the debate. I commend it to the House.

Mr. R. Williams: This is, as the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, a highly-technical Amendment, but it is also one of the most important matters dealt with in the Bill.
I raised this question earlier because of certain observations which were made by a learned judge in the High Court. Had this provision not been inserted in the Bill, I think that it would have been possible for cases to have been taken where men had suffered from serious disablement


and where very substantial damages would have been possible, and that they would not, in fact, have recovered those damages because the owners would have been enabled to plead that they were not liable, since there was a statutory condition or prohibition resting on the person actually guilty of negligence or of committing the offence.
12 noon.
It is no doubt a highly technical matter, but I do not think that it should be dismissed lightly because of that. I am not suggesting, of course, that the Parliamentary Secretary even thought of dismissing it lightly. I make no apology for taking up a little time on this very important technical point, because the result of including the Clause in the Bill—since it removes doubts—will be that quite a substantial number of cases will have no difficulty in recovering the damages to which they are so justly entitled. I offer the heartiest congratulations to the Minister and his colleagues for having fulfilled his undertaking so splendidly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 157.—(PENALIZATION OF SUPPLY OF DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR MINES AND QUARRIES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 42, leave out Clause 157.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause deals with the penalties to be applied for the supply of defective equipment for mines and quarries. Hon. Members will recall that at various stages of the Bill we had many discussions on this subject and, in response to appeals made to him, my right hon. Friend agreed that we should reconsider the whole question. That reconsideration has taken place. During the course of it we frankly came to the conclusion that the Clause was not going to be an effective provision at all and that the onus to which it referred was too difficult to establish and to prove. We have come to the conclusion that the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, and such provisions as my right hon. Friend is able to make by way of regulations, can adequately safeguard the position. Accordingly, we

commend to the House agreement with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 99, lines 13 to 27, agreed to.

Clause 167.—(PROVISIONS AS TO REFER ENCES UPON NOTICES SERVED BY INSPECTORS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 99, leave out lines 13 to 27, and insert:
a person or persons selected by the nominated selector (as hereinafter defined) from amongst the members of that one of the panels of persons appointed by the Minister under this section which is appropriate to the circumstances of the case:
Provided that, if the said selector is satisfied that special reasons exist which render it expedient for him to act as referee instead of a person or persons selected as aforesaid, he may direct that the notice shall stand referred to him.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment brings back a very old friend—the question of the reference of a dispute and who shall be the referee. I think that at last we have got it right. At least we sincerely hope so.

Mr. T. Brown: We hope.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The effect of the provision, which I think will be agreeable to all sides, is that when a dispute arises on a notice from the inspector, it shall be referred automatically by the selector, who will be nominated by my right hon. Friend after consultation with the Lord Chancellor and with the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, to a specific referee. We believe that that is the simplest, speediest and surest way in which the object can possibly be achieved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 101, line 15, agreed to.

New Clause K.—(PROVISIONS AS TO KNOWLEDGE BY OFFICIALS, ETC., OF WELSH LANGUAGE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 101, line 15, after the Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "K":
Where the natural language of communication of the persons employed at a mine or


quarry or of a substantial number of those persons is Welsh, then, in considering the qualifications of candidates for appointments required, by or by virtue of this Act, to be made in the case of that mine or quarry, regard shall be had to the possession of a knowledge of that language.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
If I may be permitted a personal confession, I must admit that my position is delicate in this matter, because I am one of the number of people with Welsh names who are not able to speak the Welsh language. Therefore, I submit myself to the indulgence of the House right at the beginning. But I appreciate the importance of having a provision of this kind, more particularly because some years ago I had an illustration of its importance. I was travelling in Wales in the mountain districts and lost my way late at night. I began to ask the way—I am sorry to say in English—and it was a long time before I could find somebody who understood what I was trying to say. I see that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) is considering this matter with great care. The really important thing is that a large number of Welsh people, and particularly Welsh miners, think in Welsh more naturally and more speedily than they do in English. Therefore, where quick action is essential for safety it is important that directions should be given in a language which causes the quickest and most efficient reaction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, to the Amendment in page 103, line 36, agreed to.

Clause 175.—(MEANING OF "MINE" AND "QUARRY".)

Lords Amendment: In page 103, line 36, leave out subsection (4), and insert:
(4) For the purposes of this Act, premises for he time being used for depositing refuse from a single mine or quarry, being premises exclusively occupied by the owner of that mine or quarry, shall be deemed to form part of that mine or quarry, and premises for the time being used for depositing refuse from two or more mines or quarries, being premises occupied by the owner of one of those mines Or quarries (either exclusively or jointly with the owner of the other or any of the others) shall be deemed to form part of such one of those mines or quarries as the Minister may direct.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment clears up a small point about responsibility for refuse dumps. Its effect is to render the mine or quarry owner responsible for the dump where he puts his refuse only where that dump is exclusively occupied by that mine or quarry owner.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 107, line 1, agreed to.

Clause 177.—(GENERAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 107, line 1, leave out from "to" to end of line 4, and insert "any person".

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment deals with a question of interpretation. Its effect is to ensure that the mine shall not be considered to be working if its only operation is to pump water not only to a water undertaker but to any other person as well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to the Amendment in page 121, line 23, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment: In page 121, line 23, column 3, at end, insert:
In section twenty-three, in subsection (3), the word "agent" and in subsection (4) the word "agent".

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This brings us to the end of the Amendments which we are asked to consider today.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I should like to support the Motion. We have dealt this morning in one hour and ten minutes with 430 Amendments which have come from another place. Some, as the Minister has said, were more appropriately considered at first in another place. Others have been the result of matters with which we have dealt here. We are very grateful to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the new


procedure followed this morning, which has so greatly accelerated our labours and lightened yours, Mr. Speaker.
Every Amendment agreed to this morning has improved the Bill. Some of them have been of very real importance. There have been those, for instance, ensuring that the deputies in fulfilling their duties put health and safety first and those that deal with supplying every miner concerned with the rules about support, in writing, or in pictures which will help them to understand them. There is the very important matter about what the Civil Service likes to call "disinfestation," dealing with rats and vermin, the business of the arbitrator, and so on.
In all these matters the Minister has helped us, and I thank him. I should like specially to thank him, the Parliamentary Secretary and the former Attorney-General, and also to express appreciation of what has been done by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), the hon. Member whom the Minister used to refer to as the hon. Member for Blyton, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and, above all, after his great work of last week, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), who has carried the burden of the legal work on our side. He worked so hard during the summer that, as a result of overstrain, he had a serious accident which kept him from the conclusion of our labours on Third Reading. We are very glad to see him here today, and I express our gratitude to him.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I hope to keep in order by saying that I am dealing with what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said about the Amendments. In response to the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to remind the House that I said, right at the beginning when we brought the Bill forward and again when we considered these Amendments, that we should welcome the co-operation of hon. Members opposite. I now say publicly that we have had that co-operation in full measure and that it was only with the aid of that co-operation that we have been able to make the Bill what it is and what I believe its interpretation in history will be—a fitting safety code for the great future of the British mining industry.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SPINNING MILL, OLDHAM (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]

12.12 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: It the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power is not in a desperate hurry to leave the Chamber for two or three minutes, I might be able to say something of interest to him. I did not ask him to come specially today because I thought that it would be unjust, on one Adjournment Motion, to suggest that two Ministers should be present.
On 28th October, I put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade in which I raised preliminary inquiries about the closing of Granville Mill, Oldham. The mill even now is not closed, but there appears to be no doubt among the representatives of the textile workers that it is to be closed in a week or two. There is some considerable doubt and apprehension about the cause.
In opening I wish to make reference to the general position in Oldham. I say at once that I am not here to try to make things look blacker than they are. The position of employment in Oldham is, in general, satisfactory. We have very little real unemployment in the sense of people losing work through trade conditions. We have about 120 disabled persons unemployed who have been out of work for a long time. I do not like to use the term of human beings, but they represent a hard core; they are almost basically unemployable except under special conditions. They are people for whom I hope at some time or other to persuade the Minister of Labour to try to arrange home work and specialised employment.
There are some signs and portents that are not happy for the future of the great textile industry. Ministers must get out of the habit of suggesting that because a man leaves a job in the textile mill and gets a job as a bus conductor, the unemployment situation is good. Apart from the question of serious hardship in leaving skilled employment and being


forced to work in some other industry for which a man has no aptitude, there is the whole question of production and the maintenance of a basic export industry on which our prosperity greatly depends. We must not think in those terms.
In terms of cotton generally, employment is definitely down in the last two-and-a-half years, both in spinning and weaving. Although there has been some increase in things like nylon, and so on, there has been a diminution of employment, and that is serious.
I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power that I had a deputation from the National Union of Mineworkers in Oldham, who are concerned about the closing of the Wood Park pit, Oldham. They are told that it is Coal Board policy to close it in 1955. That that is so is made quite evident by the policy of running-down in the pit. I appreciate that if it is part of planning policy that a pit shall be closed, then it is not likely that new machinery will be installed. This pit, however, is a very old and successful one. I believe that it has never had any trouble.
A few months ago it employed 412 men. It was turning out about 1,760 tons of coal a week. The explored reserves which have not been touched amount to about one million tons, and I am told that the No. 4 bore provides access to the coal 900 yards from the pit bottom. I am told by the experts that there is there a production available of 2,000 tons of coal a week which would last for years. This is no small matter and it is exceedingly important that the position should be considered in the light of that.
The closing down of the pit is part of a policy of moving the men somewhere else, and in this case the "somewhere else" is seven miles away, at Bradford pit, Manchester. That is a big pit, with excessive gradients which make it unsuitable for miners who have been used to a different type of working at Oldham. If the men are transferred, a very big journey will be involved. The men will have to travel two or three miles from their own homes to get to a central place, and then a further seven miles on the bus on a most crowded route through Ashton-under-Lyne and

Manchester to get to the pit, and back again. Then they would have to travel underground to the face. This is a serious matter which I hope will be considered, and about which I shall be making other representations. I introduce reference to it only as an indication of the fact that one must take same of these problems rather more seriously.
The Question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade was about Granville Mill, Oldham. I asked the right hon. Gentleman:
… whether he is aware that the Granville Mill, Oldham, which has been operating as a weft and big cop spinning mill since 1884, has closed down on the grounds of foreign competition; and, in view of the resulting loss of employment and production, if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy as to the cotton industry.
The mill was ostensibly closed on the ground of lack of production and the fact that ostensibly a 6 per cent. increase in the wages of cotton workers had turned the balance between profit and loss, and, therefore, it was reluctantly found necessary to close. The President of the Board of Trade expressed some dubiety about the accuracy of that statement in his reply. I should try to make it clear that I was not for one moment dissenting from the point of view of the President of the Board of Trade when I suggested that the reason was probably nothing to do with wages and production but was possibly for tax evasion. I said:
… does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if a mill which ought to make money is closed down for tax reasons, he owes a duty to the House and to the public to say how this comes about?
At that moment I appear to have shocked the tender nerves of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) who said:
That is a shocking charge to make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 2122–3.]
I was not quite clear whether that remark was meant for the President of the Board of Trade or for me, but as we were more or less in agreement the point would appear to be academic in any event. I ventured to notify the hon. Member for Ayr that I might refer to that observation today and, to my surprice, I found that he is engaged in Scotland and is not able to be here at this normal Parliamentary hour.
I will not elaborate on that point, except to say that it seems to me that the question whether or not the observation was disgraceful depends to some extent on whether or not it was true. If one makes a true statement suggesting something that implies in the delicate mind of the lion. Member for Ayr something dishonourable, it may be that the dishonourable facts are in the operations which are being criticised rather than in the criticism. I do not want to pursue the matter, but it seems to me that there was rather more of "hot air" than "Ayr" in the observation which was made.
I spent a few minutes at the Companies' Registration Office yesterday. I was shocked with horror at one point. The Board of Trade itself becomes a participant—it may be unwillingly, and it may be almost a compelled participant under the orders—in some of the curious operations which have taken place with regard to Granville Mill.
The basic facts about Granville Mill are that it has a capital of £80,000 and it has made quite handsome profits. It was paying a 15 per cent. dividend last year. About April this year a Mr. Alfred Edward Hatton, on behalf of himself and other persons interested, made an offer to purchase the whole of the stock at £2 for each £1 share held. The actual issued capital was then £74,184 out of the authorised capital of £80,000. So the purchase price was £148,368. That offer was accepted, and as recently as 26th June, 1954, the shareholders received payments on their shareholdings to the amount of £2 for every £1 share held.
At that stage there did not appear to be any fear or alarm. The application for an increase in wages had been made. It was bound to be accepted. If Mr. Hatton had referred to Old Moore's Almanac—I am not now referring to the hon. Member for Ayr—he would have been told that the application was likely to be granted. It was what one would take into consideration in assessing the prospects of the firm.
As I have said, on 26th June payment was made. Also, £9,000 was paid to the directors for loss of office. It was a very valuable office to lose Mr. Hatton became the chairman of the directors. Mr. Hatton is, in fact, a director of the

Oldham Storage Company Limited, Allied Warehousing Company Limited, B. & H. Oldham Limited, the Brunton Trading Company Limited, the Star Iron Works (Oldham) Limited, the Bricham Marine Service and the Glen Vale Art Fabrics Limited, in addition to his directorship of the Marlborough Mill. So he appears to be a man of some considerable experience and hardly likely to be taken by surprise by an increase in wages given to the cotton workers.
However, in October the announcement came quite bluntly that the Granville Mill was to be closed down. The net profit for the previous year had been £24,611, the contingencies and tax reserves amounted to £59,000, on the balance sheet there were fixed assets at £120,000, the stock in trade was £93,000, and there were other perfectly favourable items.
It will not surprise any hon. Member on either side of the House to know that the unions of the cardworkers and the other operatives were deeply concerned about this, not knowing whether it manifested a trend or was only a curious individual transaction. They held a protest meeting. I was in Oldham last weekend, and I was told that, notwithstanding the protest, the decision to close the mill is to be carried through.
There is another unhappy issue in respect of the closing of the mill about which I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary might well consult the Cotton Board. I am told that the moment the notification of closing was made, welfare officers from other mills went to Granville Mill to see the best of the employees, for there is a demand for the highly technically-trained employees of this old-established mill, which has been going since 1884. The welfare officers were not even allowed on the premises. Therefore, it appears that there really has been a definite attempt to frustrate the workers from obtaining other work after the notification was made.
The Companies' Register appears to show a rather curious series of operations in connection with Granville Mill. There was formed and incorporated in March, 1953, a new company which is known as G.M. (Derker) Limited. Presumably, the initials, G.M., are those of Granville Mill; Derker is a part of Oldham. The company had a total capital of £100.
G.M. (Derker) Limited, out of its £100, agreed to buy the whole of the assets of Granville Mill Limited. Having done that, G.M. (Derker) Limited applied to the Board of Trade to change its name to Granville Mill Limited. Therefore, Granville Mill Limited has now become Granville Mill (Holdings) Limited, G.M. (Derker) Limited has become Granville Mill Limited, and Granville Mill has the same directors—Mr. Hatton and his friends—as the other company. Once permission was given by the Board of Trade for the change of name on 13th March we got an increase of capital in Granville Mill Limited which restored it to the capital position in the original company.
I do not now understand all these matters. I understood that certain budgetary provision had been made which would minimise the effect of some of these ingenious operations. It was two years ago that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), in an able speech, called attention to it. It was the custom, if one had a big profit, to decide not to pay tax upon it, and to do that one terminated the operations of the company and gave notice that one was no longer continuing the business. One then popped up as a new company and bought oneself from oneself and started operations again, and then paid tax on the first year of operation of the new company instead of on the last year of operation of the old company. If one saw that one's profits were declining, one could in that way save a substantial sum in tax, sometimes amounting to many thousands of pounds.
These are the main matters to which I wish to call attention. Had the hon. Member for Ayr been here I am sure that he would have said that he was a little ungenerous to suggest out of the blue that my comment about tax evasion was made without foundation or without thought or care.
I mentioned that Mr. Hatton is also a director of Marlborough Mill Limited, which is in Failsworth, adjoining Oldham. There again there was a company with a nominal capital of £80,000 which was formed in November, 1905. The story of the cotton industry as read in the Companies' Registration Office is a very moving one. It can be seen as clearly marked in the figures, in the

blueprints and in the rather dull forms as it can be written by those who have told the story of Lancashire between the wars. One gets the inflation, the big capital with only a small allotment, the gradual call-up of more and more money.
One goes to the register and finds artisans, and postmen and so on having their shares cancelled and forfeited because of their financial situation. Then there comes the end of the slump and the era of profit, and in the era of profit Marlborough Mill was doing exceedingly well. It had done very badly and had shown very great losses in the past, but in recent years Marlborough Mill has done exceedingly well indeed.
On 30th October, 1953—it seems to me that these dates are not without significance—Marlborough Mill Limited, which had then been making substantial profits for some time—in one year £55,000, which is getting near the total issued capital, and with £60,000 carried forward—by special resolution changed its name to Marlborough Mill (Holdings) Limited. Then, on 14th March, 1954, by special resolution its capital was reduced and the 10s. shares were reduced to 6d. shares, so that the total capital became £11,114.
Very shortly after that the capital was again increased by the creation of 211,166 shares of £1 each, and a new company was formed which had the old title of Marlborough Mill Limited. The old company was now, of course, Marlborough Mill (Holdings) Limited. Marlborough Mill Limited had a capital of £100. Mr. Alfred Edward Hatton was one of its directors.
On 9th November, 1953, an agreement for sale was made between Marlborough Mill (Holdings) Limited and Marlborough Mill Limited; and a substantial consideration by way of purchase price for the purchase of the whole of the long leasehold of the mill—it was a 999-year leasehold—and the assets and goodwill was the issue of the shares which had just been created. The purchase money was said to be £210,000, which was to be satisfied largely by the allotment of 124,480 shares and by some other smaller payments.
Marlborough Mill continues, but the time has come when the Minister might


consider looking into these transactions. I am not trying to attack anyone, and I never use the privileges of this House for personal attack or personal criticism. Nevertheless, the maintenance of employment in my constituency is a matter of concern. We have the authority of Lord Chief Justice Hewart for saying that the laws should not be used in order to evade taxes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should be able to prevent evasions. These transactions are a gambling with the lives and the employment of the people, and they are a serious matter when they mean a decision to close a mill and to throw a lot of people out of work.
The evidence is overwhelming that the reason for this action has nothing to do with profit or loss, or with employment. It is impossible to believe that from July, when these transactions started, to October, 1954, all this money should have been paid, and yet that the people concerned are reluctantly compelled to close down, because of the 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. increase in wages. It cannot be true, and it is time to look at this matter. The conclusion is irresistible that the employment and security, and also the good confidence of the people, are vitally concerned.
There are good employers in the industry. I do not find the same bitterness between employer and employee as I used to find. That is going. I have not the slightest desire to attack the reputation of the people who are running mills in Oldham, in many of which there is a very good feeling indeed because of the generous measures that have been initiated, showing a more progressive spirit. Nevertheless, the matter I have raised is one for the Parliamentary Secretary to discuss with the Cotton Board and with the textile industry.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has by now found out the weakness of his own position, because of unplanned buying of cotton while trying to plan sales, of a colonial policy which is not creating purchasing power but is diminishing it, and of having planned imports in the Colonies, under the Japanese Treaty, G.A.T.T. and so on, and unplanned exports. These things constantly bring the Parliamentary Secretary into difficulties.
Textile workers' unions can claim above all that they have concerned themselves with the planning of employment and the maintenance and planning of production. Some of the work they did during the war was of very great help. I hope in a few months' time to be able to show the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary some of the results of the work which has been done, and I hope that we shall then be able to formulate a better arrangement. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned and does not want unemployment in the textile industry. I hope that he will take all the steps he can to maintain full employment and will try to cooperate with the industry in these matters.

12.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has often showed his concern with matters that have excited interest in his constituency. The matter he has raised today arises directly from the Question that he put to my right hon. Friend on 28th October, 1954. I know that the hon. Member will join me in regretting the inevitable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) who would have been here on this occasion but for the fact that he is a member of a Parliamentary delegation which has gone abroad.
I do not wish to go into the various company changes that took place before the last Finance Act. I know that the hon. Member will appreciate the reasons. As he rightly said, certain practices relating to holding companies were the subject of legislation in that Act. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the transaction in June this year by which the present proprietors acquired this mill has nothing to do with tax evasion which was the implication of the supplementary question which the hon. Member put to my right hon. Friend and which he repeated this morning. I do not think that that suspicion is well-founded, but no doubt the Treasury will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The hon. Member cast doubts on whether the mill was closed for the reasons publicly given by the present owners. I share those doubts. on the basis of the last available balance sheet and of the cotton that has been bought


and on the grounds alluded to by my right hon. Friend in his answers to the hon. Member's questions. The hon. Member is right in saying that the trade unions have shown anxiety on this matter, but I do not think they have communicated with the Board of Trade about it. I have, however, observed from the Press the anxiety of the trade unions and their fear of the effects upon employment. That is naturally their concern, and, I need hardly add, ours too. According to statements in the Press, the trade unions recognised that the owners were legally entitled to do what they did. It could not, of course, have been prevented without legislation, and we cannot discuss legislation today.
What the hon. Member will wish me to do is to consider how far the fears of the trade unions and the workers are likely to be realised, and particularly the effect on employment. I am glad that the hon. Member started his speech by not being alarmist on that score. He was quite right. The Granville Mill employed 306 workers—171 men and 135 women and girls—but in September, 1954, vacancies in the North-West Region in cotton spinning and doubling were 5,330 compared with 1,490 unemployed. If we take spinning, weaving and doubling together the figures were 7,875 vacancies and 2,321 unemployed. Put more vividly, there were some 3½ vacancies for every person unemployed.

Mr. Hale: I think the Parliamentary Secretary knows that, while his figures are perfectly correct, and I do not challenge them, they are misleading in this respect. When we drive 25,000 people out of the industry and they get employment in some other industries, they are still in employment and therefore not unemployed, but they never return to the cotton industry. If people are driven by insecurity to some other employment—and they can still find employment with firms like Ferranti and A. V. Roe Limited—they are lost to the industry and their technical skill is lost, as well as their interest and security, and it is our lamentable experience in the cotton industry that we never get them back. In fact, we have gone from 750,000 in 1918 to 230,000 today.

Mr. Strauss: I was only giving the statistical facts, but I should be distressed indeed if I did not think that these men

and women had not only good prospects of employment but also good prospects of work in their own industry. That is the point with which I wish to deal. Although I have the actual figures of total unemployment in Oldham, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, I will not trouble the House with them.
Perhaps I might say in passing that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power has given me a note on the Wood Park Pit. He could not himself give me the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member on this subject, but my hon. Friend noted the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and will write to him.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged.

Mr. Strauss: On the question of those previously employed in Granville Mill, I have been in communication with the department of the Ministry of Labour concerned, and I am informed that no employee of this mill is signing the unemployment register. Passing for the moment from the question of employment to other possible effects—and this was quite rightly mentioned by the hon. Member—we must also consider the effect on production. The average weekly yarn output of the Granville Mill was 60,000 lbs., which is about 0·3 of 1 per cent. of the output of Lancashire. The total production of the industry in the week ended 30th October, 1954, was 20·95 million lbs., which is the highest output since the 1952 recession, though it is below the peak 1951 figure.
One limiting factor in this field has been the shortage of labour, which has in fact prevented the increase being as large as it might have been. In these circumstances, the closure of a mill, particularly one that is equipped with old machinery, does not necessarily have a bad effect either on the stability of employment—though I admit the immediate disturbance—or on production in the industry, because the labour is made available for employment in other mills in the district at which labour is short and which may be equipped with more modern machinery.
The view that neither employment nor production need necessarily be adversely affected by this decision, whatever its cause, and I am not arguing about the


cause, is shared by expert opinion in Lancashire. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw what appeared in the Trade Notes of the "Manchester Guardian" on 22nd October, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not mind my reading to the House a paragraph or so, in order to put the House in possession of the facts. This is what it said:
It was perhaps to be expected that the trade unions in cotton spinning would have something to say about the decision to close down the Granville Mill at Oldham, but the statement which they made yesterday should not be taken as indicating that it is necessarily a cause for regret to all the parties concerned when a mill changes hands and its new owners decide to cease production. What frequently happens in such circumstances is that the workers released enable other mills in the district to bring their labour forces up to the levels which allow them to produce with greater economy and efficiency. The shortage of workers is still such that many mill managers cannot staff all the machinery which they would like to operate, and when one mill is stopped the workers have little difficulty in finding employment elsewhere.
The next paragraph deals with production, and perhaps I may read the concluding sentence:
Fifteen or twenty spinning mills have been closed down since the beginning of 1952, but this has not prevented total output from reaching the level which was recorded then.
I would say to the hon. Member that I share his doubts about the validity of the reason given publicly for the closing of this mill, but, in examining the effect, I see no reason to think that it will have a bad influence either on employment or on production.
On the various financial transactions which the hon. Member mentioned, I would say that these preceded the introduction of the 1954 Finance Act. My recollection coincides with that of the hon. Member as to what was said on this subject last year and in previous years by his colleague who preceded me at the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). As regards the transaction in June of this year, as far as I am able to see, that has nothing whatever to do with tax evasion, but I shall see that everything that the hon. Gentleman said on that matter is considered by my hon. Friend at the Treasury. I think I have covered the points with which the hon. Member has

dealt, and I hope I have been able to satisfy him.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I do not wish to detain the House or the Minister on this matter. I could not expect the hon. and learned Gentleman to give a further reply after the statement he has made so effectively on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), about which I wish to say a word or two.
I am interested in Lancashire, having been brought up there. I was a teacher in the area where these mills and mines to which reference has been made are situated. I know something about the unemployment in that area in the earlier period when cotton mills were closed on such a large scale. I am not a bit moved by listening to the learned economics put forward with the authority of the trade columns of the "Manchester Guardian" about the general consequences of the sort of thing my hon. Friend has raised.
I think the Minister has admitted that, even if it is true, in some long run—often it is a very long run—the production comes round to a level to make up for the closing of individual mills. But in that area the population becomes fairly static after a period of years in which the people have grown accustomed to work in those mills and expected to be there for the rest of their lives. The uprooting of these people is possibly not mentioned in labour exchange figures, as they may have got jobs in a favourable labour market, but that work may be far away from their homes and the difficulties raised for them may be very great indeed. All that should be taken fully into account by us when we discuss these problems, even if the "Manchester Guardian" does not take al that fully into account. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he is going to make careful inquiries into what has been done about this mill.
The point I wish to raise is a matter to which no Minister can reply. The only person I can think of who can give a reply would be yourself, Mr. Speaker. I want to comment on the way in which the Order Paper is drafted and the inconvenience to which hon. Members are put by the arrangements made for Friday's business. I am saying this now


to allow the Minister to get away if he wishes; I do not want to detain him any longer. Here we are on the last Friday of this Session with a list of Bills on the Order Paper.
You may be able to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that I have been long enough in the House to know the rules and to understand this Order Paper in such a way as to save myself inconvenience. But I am a suspicious sort of child, despite the fact that I have tried to learn the rules of the House and to consult the Whips about what is to happen on a Friday——

Mr. Hale: That is where my hon. Friend makes a mistake.

Mr. Hudson: I do the best I can to understand these things. All through the year on every Friday I am warned that there is a Bill called the Licensing (Airports) Bill which is to be discussed in the House of Commons. This Bill first appeared in February of this year. It was moved and seconded on the nod. No one made a speech about it and I began my speech in opposition. That seems now to be in the dim and misty days of antiquity. Everyone must have forgotten what my speech was. I began it in February and repeated it Friday after Friday. You yourself on one occasion forgot that I was in possession of the Floor of the House and expected the matter to be finished with, but there I was. I have been there ever since.
Although I do not want to imperil the rights of Private Members who, under this arrangement, have the opportunity to have their Bills put down on succeeding Fridays throughout the Session, it is, however, rather inconvenient for one hon. Member, like myself, who began a speech and has continued it by instalments Friday after Friday to be hanging about here and still at the bitter end of a long Session on a Friday when all have fled—not even can I expect the Minister to remain—I have to be here on the assumption that possibly something might happen with regard to the Order Paper.
I know that on behalf of the parties the Whips discuss what the business is to be but they are not altogether sure about what is to happen. They know, as I know, that on five succeeding Fridays for some reason or other this

matter came up again. It has meant that an hon. Member who is concerned about a Bill, even if for no other purpose than to oppose it—as he has the right to do—has to be here Friday after Friday keeping a watchful eye to see whether this Bill of a very objectionable character introduced by only two or three hon. Members——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should know that once the Adjournment of the House has been moved his vigil is at an end. There is no further need for his attendance because, on the Adjournment, it is not possible to discuss legislation. I think the hon. Member has so far obeyed that rule in regard to this Bill, but this is not a good occasion on which the hon. Member should continue the speech, in which he has been so often interrupted.

Mr. Hudson: It is on that point that I wish for your further guidance, Mr. Speaker. I was aware that until the Adjournment came I was not safe. I was listening to the business of the day, although not taking part, ready for what might have happened. When the Adjournment came, as you have pointed out, I was safe. The matter cannot go further, but I put it to you that there is some understanding that on the Adjournment an hon. Member can raise almost anything. I was hoping that on the Adjournment I might raise this matter very briefly. I am certainly not going to hold you up. I sympathise with you, as I was suggesting by implication that you should sympathise with me in the long wait I have had on this issue.
There ought to be a clearer arrangement, either by means of the Order Paper or some other means, by which Private Members responsible for a Bill could indicate the particular days to which it is postponed in order that they might be here to be challenged and those opposing might be here to oppose. For lack of that, I suggest to you that even this morning—at least up to the Adjournment debate—hon. Members concerned about the matter have had to wait.
I only make that protest. There is no one to reply to it except, perhaps, the Whips department. At times I rather suspected that the Whips were playing a game with these three Private Members. When they were not here to say when


their Bill would be taken next someone or other on the benches opposite—I suggest at times the Whips department—indicated a day later in the Session when the matter could be discussed. At any rate it has been kept alive without the presence of any of the hon. Members who brought the Bill in and it is still with us at the bitter end of the Session.
It has kept me here constantly watching and ready to continue the long speech I

started last February. I am sure you will sympathise with me when I suggest that another look should be taken at the process by which the Orders of the House are arranged. Hon. Members should know more clearly what is to take place in regard to Bills appearing on the Order Paper.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at One o'Clock.